- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45828 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 217 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SUJATHA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 52 YEARS R/O YELLAPURA ARAKERE POST TUMAKURU TALUK 572101 TUMAKURU DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARATHKUMAR G.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O. LATE VEERASANGAPPA AGED 60 YEARS R/AT THIMALPURA VILLAGE OORUKERE POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK 572101 TUMAURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.62/2021 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED IN Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45828 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2023 C.C.NO.2481/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II AT TUMAKURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 23.11.2021 passed by Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II at Tumakuru in C.C.no.2481/2018 and confirmed in judgment dated 24.01.2023 passed by II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Crl.A.no.62/2021, this Revision Petition is filed. 2. Sri Sharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.Chethan, Advocate for petitioner submitted that Revision Petition was against concurrent findings of Trial Court convicting petitioner for offences punishable under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. ACT'). 3. It was submitted that respondent - complainant had filed a private complaint alleging that complainant and accused were friends, that accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.2,40,000/- for legal necessity agreeing to return same within one year and on demand of repayment, accused had issued a cheque bearing no.533799 for Rs.2,40,000/- drawn on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45828 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2023 State Bank of Mysore, Yellapur Branch, Tumakuru, which when presented for encashment returned with endorsement dated 05.08.2017 as 'Funds Insufficient' and even after complainant got issued demand notice dated 16.08.2017 which returned as refused by accused, accused did not honour demand, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Act. 4. On appearance accused had sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked herself and another as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. 5. On appraisal of incriminating material which was denied by accused, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter accused examined himself as D.W.1. It was submitted, accused substantiated defence in cross- examination of complainant which were not properly considered. Even Appellate Court failed to appreciate contention and erroneously confirmed order of conviction passed by Trial Court. 6. First ground urged in Revision Petition is that impugned orders are contrary to record and without proper - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45828 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2023 appreciation of evidence. It was submitted that husband of accused had borrowed Rs.5,000/- from complainant and cheque in question was issued as security for same, but mis- used for initiating present proceedings. It is contended merely on ground that accused did not lead evidence, Trial Court arrived at conclusion that accused had failed to substantiate his defence, which was contrary to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898, it is also submitted that Appellate Court erred in according fair opportunity to accused to substantiate defence. 7. On other hand, Sri M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for complainant opposed Revision Petition. It was submitted that accused did not dispute issuance of cheque and his signature on cheque. It was submitted there was no denial of receipt of demand notice. No reply was issued. 8. Under above circumstances, both Courts justifiably extended presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act in favour of complainant and for failure to substantiate defence, order of conviction were passed. Same were after examination of material on record and by assigning reasons. Hence, they did - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45828 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2023 not suffer from perversity. On said grounds, sought for rejection of Revision Petition. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments. 10. This Revision Petition is by accused against concurrent judgments convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directing him to pay Rs.2,75,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held scope for interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against concurrent findings would be limited to examine whether findings are contrary to a statute or suffer from perversity. 12. While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court has taken note of pleadings in complaint and deposition, wherein complainant stated that on demand of return of hand loan, accused had issued cheque in question to complainant which when presented was returned dishonoured and accused had - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45828 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2023 failed to comply with demand notice, which would constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Though it is observed that accused had set up defence that cheque was issued as security for earlier loan transaction between husband of accused and complainant, during cross-examination nothing material is elicited to substantiate said contention. 13. On other hand, said contention would admit of issuance of cheque and signature of accused on same. This would attract presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act in favour of complainant. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa's (supra) case there would be no need for accused to lead independent evidence and his defence could be substantiated in cross-examination of complainant. As noted above, except bare suggestion that cheque was issued by accused - wife, there is no material admission elicited. Consequently, judgment of Trial Court extending presumption in favour of holder of cheque that it was issued for legally enforceable debt would be justified. 14. Yet another factor which would reinforce conclusion of both Courts is that accused did not reply to legal notice, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45828 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2023 which would lead to an inference against accused, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069. Thus, it cannot be said that there was infraction of ratio laid down in Rangapa's case (supra). 15. Insofar as contention about lack of opportunity before First Appellate Court, bare perusal of order impugned would reveal that judgment was passed after hearing counsel for accused. Therefore, contention urged appears omni bus and vague, apart from being unsubstantiated. 16. In view of above, there would no justifiable ground to interfere with impugned judgment. Revision Petition is without merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23